"BCITORGB" wrote in message
oups.com...
Scott stuns frtzw906 with his very left-of-center appraoch to both
policing and education.... WOW!"
=====================
I don't disagree at all. Moreover, I would like to see monies collected
for
schools brought into a central, state-operated distribution center, and
distributed to the individual schools (not districts) based on
per-capita
attendance and demonstrable need or sub-standard facilities and/or
equipment. That would eliminate the disparity in facilities, equipment,
supplies and qualified teachers seen between wealthy communities and
inner-city areas.
====================

Your point about "individual schools (not districts) very much mirrors
the German model (there are no districts -- there are just schools
within the state).

I'll have to agree with you fully on your proposal. The district model
has always confounded me because it exacerbates the discepancies.

OK, Scott, explain the logical inconsistency between your position on
policing (and apparently schooling -- I'm still picking myself off the
floor!! GRIN), and healthcare. It seems we could/should apply the
very same logic to medical services as we do to educational (police)
services above.

Just curious....

frtzw906

Me too!

And I would love to see more accountability and responsibility at the level
of the school. The school environment is extremely stifling due to the
multiple levels of bureacracy, particularly in large urban areas. Teachers
and principals lack appropriate freedom to respond to student and family
needs, and mediocrity is encouraged. One understandable resistance to
increased control at the school level comes from the fear that it is simply
an excuse to reduce education.

A Usenet persona calling itself frtzw906 wrote:


"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

In discussing the finances of Whazzits State Univ, Scott asserts:
======================
But there's profit to be made nonetheless.
================

Profits!!!! Profits!!!???? A public university makes a profit! Surely
you jest. Help me with this. Point me to a source.

No, the hospitals and clinics who hire med school graduates make the
profits. They support the med schools so they have graduates to hire.

=================
That's a stretch and I think you're making that up. It's OK to admit that
there are institutions in the USA that do not operate according to the
profit principle (police for instance). And your state universities fit into
that category. And in those universities, the med schools are a terrible
drain on resources. They are everywhere.
===============

Hey, there are *lots* of opportunities to make a profit, even in police
departments. Do you think the police officers, or the professors and
custodians work for FREE?

Profit drives almost every institution. Rare indeed is the organization in
which *nobody* profits. Not even the Red Cross is "profitless."





Scott:
================
While the Governor does appoint regents for all other colleges,
====================

OK, and then you presume to tell me that the government exercises NO
control over the affairs of the universities and colleges?!

Other than appointing the Regents, no.

================
Well, in our other threads, you've demonstrated a number of characteristics,
but naivete was never one of them.

If the governor appoints the Regents, they also get certain "marching
orders".
========================

Perhaps, but not in any formal way. Besides, CU Regents are not appointed by
the governor, and they are the only state university with a med school.




Sounds like a direct link from the governor's mansion into the
university president's office.

He may have persuasive power, but no legal authority except over a very
small portion of the budget.

====================
All he needs is persuasive power.
================

All anyone needs is persuasive power. So what? If the Regents don't want to
be persuaded, the Governor has little recourse.


--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

A Usenet persona calling itself Paul Skoczylas wrote:

"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...

I think the important part is the "total federal policing services." This
indicates that they retain federal powers everywhere, no matter what, and
may choose, or not choose, to provide local and municipal enforcement.

They can choose not to. But they can only choose to if asked to by the
province (or municipality, but those are mere adjuncts to
the provinces).


I don't think so, based on your quote above. Clearly the national criminal
code is a federal matter, and thus the RCMP has jurisdiction to enforce it
wherever it chooses. That's always been my understanding of the role of the
RCMP.

Actually no. Canada's Consitution says that the feds make the criminal code,
but the provinces have exclusive authority to enforce
it. It doesn't have to make sense to you, but it is true. It's a good thing
in a way: we have a uniform criminal code across the
whole country, but we still have regional policing. It does have drawbacks,
though, such as when a provincal premier declares that
he will not allow crown attorneys (who work for the province) to prosecute a
federal law which he disagrees with. This is a
problem, since the feds don't have their own prosecutors. (This has actually
happened.)

The RCMP does not have the
authority to make that decision themselves.

I would guess that only applies to provincial or local laws, not national
(federal) laws.

Nope. As I explained above, things are different here in Canada. Criminal
laws are ALL federal laws. But according to the
Constitution it falls to the provinces to hire police to enforce them and
crown attorneys to prosectue them. Most provinces (though
they cover only half the population of the country) CHOOSE to hire the RCMP to
be their police force, but this is at their (the
provinces) own discretion.

But I still say that the RCMP retains its authority in *all* provinces to
enforce federal laws, and that it has jurisdictional superiority over
provincial and local law enforcement in that sphere.

And you're still wrong. With the exception of a very small category (e.g.
international smuggling) as I said before.

Interesting. Thanks for the information.
--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Well done Scott! Good research. Your editorials, however, most often
missed the mark. I'll take these points up with you at a later date
(there's just WAY TOO MUCH you interpreted incorrectly!).

The question you should ask yourself is whether that "incorrect
interpretation" is deliberate or not.


However, here's something you did get right:

====================
YOU CANNOT GET BETTER, "FASTER" MEDICAL CARE IN CANADA FOR "MEDICALLY
NECESSARY" TREATMENTS NO MATTER WHAT, NO MATTER HOW MUCH MONEY YOU
HAVE, NO MATTER WHETHER OR NOT A PRIVATE PHYSICIAN IS WILLING TO GO THE
EXTRA MILE FOR YOU!
===============

And that's a fact. And that's a good thng: money will NOT get you
better or faster treatment.

It's not a good thing if you need or want better care and can afford it.

It doesn't serve the teenager very well since she may miss out on a future
in athletics because of the unconscionable delays in obtaining relatively
simply knee surgery that could probably be done on an outpatient basis in a
second-tier clinic...except that there are no second-tier clinics she can go
to because the government all but forbids them.

It's only a "good thing" from the socialist "you don't get to have anything
the poorest don't also get" perspective.

Not much motivation to excel under such a system.
--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Paul informs Scott:
=============
It doesn't have to make sense to you, but it is true.
=============

That, Paul, is one of the difficulties with Scott. He's a curious
enough fellow, but I have a sense he's never travelled much out of CO,

You'd be wrong. It's just that I haven't seen a system which works better
than what we have in the US (including Colorado) anywhere in the world, and
I've seen many that are much, much worse, including, notably, every
socialist state on earth.

because he "wants" to see everything through the prism of the CO
constitution. Essentially, he'll answer most descriptions of how things
are elsewhere with: "ya but, I think that's more likely to be [insert
Scott's fantasy du jour], based on the way judges have ruled here in
CO."

Hey, we've got a great system here, why shouldn't I use it as a touchstone?
Besides, when discussing legal issues related to Colorado law, I of course
use Colorado law as the determinative element. Why wouldn't I?

We can assure him about how things work in Canada based on daily
experiences, but it it doesn't correspond to his fantasy, he'll insist
we're wrong.

Well, you can be factually correct and still be wrong. Socialism is wrong,
period. It's inexcusable, evil and always ends up in tyranny and oppression.


--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Scott in a lighter mood:
============
See, Scott, I acknowledge when you've got some really good ideas.
[And,
yes, I agree with you on the police issue.]

Well, there you go. See what happens when you don't take it personally?

===============

As you know, there's nothing to take personally here.

True. Pity we can't say the same of Netwits like Michael Daly.

I think we've
agreed on a few issues... charging the *******s who insist on watering
their lawns in the desert and filling up their huge swimming pools...
not using property taxes to fund schooling (or just about anything --
it's a very "unfair" tax as it doesn't do a good job of "measuring"
anything... )... I think there was at least one other topic... did we
talk about legalization of MJ and agree (I can't recall)...

I don¹t recall either, but that's an easy one: Yes, but with some
reservations...


Good to see you coming over to the bright side GRIN

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

"Scott Weiser" wrote:

Interesting. Thanks for the information.

You're welcome, Scott. In researching this topic, I learned a few things, too.

And to everyone else: see what happens when you avoid hurling invectives. Most people don't respond well to insults. And who can
blame them? Once the insults start, nobody is going to gain anything, and it's all just a waste of time. And I don't care who
started it. Even if you think the other guy did it first, it's still no excuse for doing it yourself.

-Paul

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Scott stuns frtzw906 with his very left-of-center appraoch to both
policing and education.... WOW!"
=====================
I don't disagree at all. Moreover, I would like to see monies collected
for
schools brought into a central, state-operated distribution center, and
distributed to the individual schools (not districts) based on
per-capita
attendance and demonstrable need or sub-standard facilities and/or
equipment. That would eliminate the disparity in facilities, equipment,
supplies and qualified teachers seen between wealthy communities and
inner-city areas.
====================

Your point about "individual schools (not districts) very much mirrors
the German model (there are no districts -- there are just schools
within the state).

I'll have to agree with you fully on your proposal. The district model
has always confounded me because it exacerbates the discepancies.

OK, Scott, explain the logical inconsistency between your position on
policing (and apparently schooling -- I'm still picking myself off the
floor!! GRIN), and healthcare. It seems we could/should apply the
very same logic to medical services as we do to educational (police)
services above.

Just curious....

Well, as to policing, everybody has to pay for it anyway, I merely propose a
different way of organizing the police, not any fundamental change in how
they (or firefighters) are funded.

As to schools, the caveat is the "if public schools are to be supported by
taxes" part of my statement. I still believe public schools are inefficient
and wasteful and that the need for schools can be much better served by the
free market combined with government stipends to economically disadvantaged
students.

But, so long as the public school system is going to exist, it ought to be
run much more efficiently and fairly than it is now. It's a lemon/lemonade
argument.

As to medical services, I have said previously that I have no objection to
providing public medical care for indigent CHILDREN, but when it comes to
adults, I believe that they should be responsible for their own lives and
health. I also firmly believe in a two-tier system where indigent children
can obtain the best possible care at public expense while, unlike Canada,
those who can afford it can obtain better, faster care by paying for it.

The argument made in the various letters from the Health Ministers of Canada
worrying that a two-tier system would cause problems because the clinics
would "cherry pick" the easy cases while leaving the hard, expensive cases
to the state is idiocy.

I would expect that any reasonable person would *welcome* off-loading as
much of the medical care expenses as the public is willing to pay for
privately. The Minister's claims are idiotic because the way the system
works now, neither the "easy" or "hard" cases can be excluded, and everyone
is entitled to care, so the costs to society are much hither, and the system
discourages, and functionally outlaws the "second tier" private market.
Thus, the taxpayers have to pay for *everyone*, easy and hard cases both. It
would save significant taxpayer money if the state ONLY had to take on the
"hard" cases and care for the truly indigent and poor who cannot afford or
don't want to spend their own money for better care, while allowing the
system to be unburdened of the "easy" cases that the wealthy can easily
afford to pay for. Note that this doesn't change the way the national system
is funded. Everyone can still be required to contribute through taxes, but
they would have to contribute less while being free to buy better care than
the national system provides if they have the extra disposable income.

What's the downside of doing so? None, that I can see.

The only excuse for not allowing such a two-tier system is *socialist
dogma!* The Minister's statements reveal quite clearly that the real issue
is not economics, but political egalitarianism by force of law. The
government WILL NOT ALLOW rich people to buy better care because it offends
their socialist sensibilities of "fair play." They firmly believe that
EVERYONE must suffer under the same inefficient, wasteful, slow medical care
system merely because SOME people would have to do so in a two-tier system.
It's the "queue" mindset that says that everyone is equal and all must
suffer equally, so the rich cannot be allowed to "jump the queue" because it
is seen as "unfair" to those who aren't rich. It has nothing to do with
medical care.

Pure, unadulterated socialism. Bad, very, very bad.

I have no intrinsic objection to a public health care system paid for by
taxes that would provide essential or critical/trauma care to all persons at
public expense PROVIDED that the taxes imposed to pay for such services are
the result of a VOTE of the people who have to pay the tax, not a tax
imposed by legislators. In Colorado, that's not a problem because of TABOR
(Taxpayers Bill of Rights) that requires a taxing authority to put the
matter to a public vote for *all* new or increased taxes. Unfortunately,
TABOR is not a national policy, but should be.


--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

On 1-Apr-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Michael Daly

You seem to have a problem with me. Too bad, dickhead.

Mike

Scott:
===========
Hey, there are *lots* of opportunities to make a profit, even in police
departments. Do you think the police officers, or the professors and
custodians work for FREE?
============

I'm not clear on what you're trying to say.

You're right, I don't work for free. But that still doesn't explain how
a university (a state university) makes a profit.

frtzw906